If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to CycloneFanatic.com. I notice you haven't taken the time to register yet, now is as good of time as any:)

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

Gasoline and heating oil are $3.99 per gallon here. When we get our next fuel barge I'm afraid that prices will jump by at least another $1.00 per gallon.

People can say that we need alternative energy but a transformation is not going to happen overnight. There is no short term viable solution other than oil to power our vehicles.

ANWR needs to be developed. Adding another one million barrels of oil per day is exactly what this country needs.

This is one issue where I can provide an Alaskan perspective.

I agree 100%. I'm not sure what the hold up is, but I would suggest a bill that allows drilling in ANWR while guaranteeing money for research into alternative energy. I get the feeling that most people who want it barred are worried that doing so will push back alternative energy research.

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

I agree 100%. I'm not sure what the hold up is, but I would suggest a bill that allows drilling in ANWR while guaranteeing money for research into alternative energy. I get the feeling that most people who want it barred are worried that doing so will push back alternative energy research.

The holdup from day one has been the Democratic Party.

You won't find any part of government in this state that opposes ANWR.

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

I agree 100%. I'm not sure what the hold up is, but I would suggest a bill that allows drilling in ANWR while guaranteeing money for research into alternative energy. I get the feeling that most people who want it barred are worried that doing so will push back alternative energy research.

Historically, most of the people that have opposed ANWR have done so for "environmental" reasons. However, the majority of these people have never toured the North Slope, don't understand the area's geography, and no little about the technology of oil drilling.

If there is one political issue that nearly every Alaskan is united on, it is that oil exploration should be allowed in ANWR.

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8&#37; of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That&#185;s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.
4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.
5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.
7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. That&#185;s $19.9 million dollars an hour! Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars. 8. No Negative Impact on AnimalsOil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.
9. Arctic TechnologyAdvanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.
10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

It frustrates me to no end that the Democrats have been able to block the opening of ANWR to oil exploration in the name of environmental protection. They claim that they are taking the high road and that they have society's interests at heart. Now who doesn't believe that environmental protection is a good thing? But what Democrats don't understand is that wealth creation is good for society too. Nor do the Democrats understand that wealth enables us to expend so much concern over our environmental issues.

The Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act of 2005 made the connection to environmental issues. Furthermore, it would have provided funding for the nations national parks and refuges.

Nevertheless, the Democrats are united in their cause not to open ANWR to oil exploration.

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

In an era of ever increasing prices for oil, wouldn't it make more sense to sit on our resources of oil in ANWR. We can develop even better technology and maybe tap into it 10-20 years or so down the road. If we drill into it now and OPEC restricts production it would offset any lowering of the price of oil. Once the supply of ANWR oil is gone we will be even more vulnerable as we will have even fewer reserves.

The smart thing to do is to sit on the supply. I have also heard that logistically that most of the oil would go to Japan and the Far East because of transportation costs. Don't know if that is completely true, but it would sure be stupid to drill ANWR to sell to the Japanese and Chinese.

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

The Department of Interior recomended that ANWR be opened up for oil exploration in 1987. Alaska's Congressional delegation, our Governors and State Legislature has been arguing for it to be opened up ever since 1987.

From a practical standpoint the votes are not there for ANWR. Legislation has been proposed in the past that would transfer the profits to Katrina victims, alternative energy, and enviromental clean-up. None of these measure have been successful.

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

Originally Posted by Stormin

In an era of ever increasing prices for oil, wouldn't it make more sense to sit on our resources of oil in ANWR. We can develop even better technology and maybe tap into it 10-20 years or so down the road. If we drill into it now and OPEC restricts production it would offset any lowering of the price of oil. Once the supply of ANWR oil is gone we will be even more vulnerable as we will have even fewer reserves.

The smart thing to do is to sit on the supply. I have also heard that logistically that most of the oil would go to Japan and the Far East because of transportation costs. Don't know if that is completely true, but it would sure be stupid to drill ANWR to sell to the Japanese and Chinese.

Currently all of the north slope oil is transported through the Alaska pipeline. The pipeline ends in Valdez, Alaska. Then 96% of the of the oil is shipped by tanker to the West Coast where it is refined. The ANWR oil would be transported through the same pipeline. Therefore, we should expect a similar percentage of the production to go to the United States.

But assuming the oil was sold to Japan or China or whereever, why should that matter? We would still reap the profits regardless of who the oil was sold to.

Re: We Need To Drill For More Oil

Originally Posted by Stormin

In an era of ever increasing prices for oil, wouldn't it make more sense to sit on our resources of oil in ANWR. We can develop even better technology and maybe tap into it 10-20 years or so down the road. If we drill into it now and OPEC restricts production it would offset any lowering of the price of oil. Once the supply of ANWR oil is gone we will be even more vulnerable as we will have even fewer reserves.

The smart thing to do is to sit on the supply. I have also heard that logistically that most of the oil would go to Japan and the Far East because of transportation costs. Don't know if that is completely true, but it would sure be stupid to drill ANWR to sell to the Japanese and Chinese.

In other words you are recommending that we speculate on the long term price of oil rather than invest in an energy source that is currently in short supply?

All content owned by CycloneFanatic.com - All rights reserved 2005-09. By viewing this website you agree to the Terms of Service, Site Rules and Legal Disclaimer. The words, views, images and opinions expressed or provided by users do not reflect the opinions or views of CycloneFanatic.com or Iowa State University. The names, words, symbols, and graphics representing Iowa State University are trademarks and copyrights of the University protected by the trademark and copyright laws of the United States of America and other countries and are used on this web site under license from the University. Original site design, premise & construction by Jeremy Lind.